Requisites for Recognition or Enforcement of Foreign Judgment i.

Where the judgment is tainted with fraud;

219 NYS 284 – 1927
Cowans et al vs Teconderoga Pulp & Paper Co.
VAN KIRK, J.
Plaintiffs in an action were able to acquire a money judgment from a Quebec court, and
seeks to recover on it in a New York court. Based on the lack of comity, as held in the
Hilton vs Guyot case, the defendants argued that the Quebec money judgment should only
constitute prima facie proof of their liability as Quebec does not grant NY the same
recognition.The Court ruled however that recognizing the foreign judgment should rely on
the basis of its own merits or persuasiveness, instead of on the principle of comity, which
adds nothing to the strength or worth of the foreign judgment.
DOCTRINE
The rule of recognizing private rights acquired under foreign laws prevails by its own
strength. It rests not on the basis of reciprocity, but rather upon the persuasiveness
of the foreign judgment. Comity adds nothing to the strength, worth, or persuasiveness
of the foreign judgment.The same persuasiveness is present with or without comity, or with
or without reciprocity.
The decision in the Hilton case would deprive a party of the private rights he has
acquired by reason of a foreign judgment, because the country in whose courts that
judgment was rendered has a different rule of evidence than we have, and does not
give the same effect as this state gives to a foreign judgment.
ii. It is tainted with an offense against the public policy of the
state; or
iii. The foreign court had no jurisdiction.
c. The rule of recognizing private rights acquired under foreign laws prevails
by its own strength. It rests not on the basis of reciprocity, but rather
upon the persuasiveness of the foreign judgment.
i. Comity adds nothing to the strength, worth, or persuasiveness of
the foreign judgment.
ii. The same persuasiveness is present with or without comity, or with
or without reciprocity.
d. The decision in the Hilton case would deprive a party of the private rights
he has acquired by reason of a foreign judgment, because the country
in whose courts that judgment was rendered has a different rule of
evidence than we have, and does not give the same effect as this state
gives to a foreign judgment.
e. Thus, the general rule must be applied to this case.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion for judgment on the
pleadings granted, with $10 costs. All concur.
OTHER NOTES
DIGESTER: Xave

FACTS
1. Cowans et al were able to acquire a money judgment from a court in Quebec,
Canada.
a. They are now bringing an action before a New York court to recover on this
money judgment from Quebec.
2. The Quebec court had jurisdiction over the action and over the person of the
defendant.
3. The case was tried on the merits.
4. The judgment was not tainted with fraud, nor with an offense against NY public policy.
5. The defendant argues however, that the Quebec judgment is only prima facie
evidence and is not conclusive upon the NY Court, because the courts of Quebec do
not reciprocate as to judgments of the state of NY.
a. Under the Code of Civil Procedure of Quebec, any defense which was or
might have been set up in the original action may be pleaded to an action
brought upon a judgment rendered out of Canada.
b. They were basically invoking the doctrine in the Hilton vs Guyot case where
comity was a requisite for the enforcement of a foreign judgment.

ISSUE with HOLDING

1. Whether the Quebec judgment is merely prima facie proof of liability (allowing the
defendant to still raise any defenses which it could have raised in Quebec), or
conclusive upon the NY Court. Conclusive!
a. As a general rule in NY: a judgment recovered in a foreign country, when
sued upon in the courts of NY, is conclusive so far as to preclude a retrial
of the merits of the case.
b. It is subject to certain exceptions:
1